Dog wrote:We lost because Galch didn't play enough. We lost because Galch played too much. We lost because we hit too much. We lost because we get hit too much.

Jesus Christ, you people!

I've enjoyed the first round because I made a conscious decision to be careful not to get sucked into sports radio or any print media. I may turn it on at 8 as they may have Mckenzie or someone on then, if not, it goes off. No Marinaro, no Melnick until after 4 when Ferraro or someone comes on, then off you go. I don't think I have better ideas than CJ and I don't think the likes of our local radio pundits know more than me. I just want to know what Artie thinks.

Dog wrote:We lost because Galch didn't play enough. We lost because Galch played too much. We lost because we hit too much. We lost because we get hit too much.

Jesus Christ, you people!

I've enjoyed the first round because I made a conscious decision to be careful not to get sucked into sports radio or any print media. I may turn it on at 8 as they may have Mckenzie or someone on then, if not, it goes off. No Marinaro, no Melnick until after 4 when Ferraro or someone comes on, then off you go. I don't think I have better ideas than CJ and I don't think the likes of our local radio pundits know more than me. I just want to know what Artie thinks.

I too have completely tuned out all sports radio or anti chambre type shows. I only listen to Dog.

These teams are too closely matched. Luck is by far the biggest factor. The only possibly differing factor was goaltending, and those have been relative non factors (Lundqvist having a bit of an edge, actually).

Dog wrote:We lost because Galch didn't play enough. We lost because Galch played too much. We lost because we hit too much. We lost because we get hit too much.

Jesus Christ, you people!

I've enjoyed the first round because I made a conscious decision to be careful not to get sucked into sports radio or any print media. I may turn it on at 8 as they may have Mckenzie or someone on then, if not, it goes off. No Marinaro, no Melnick until after 4 when Ferraro or someone comes on, then off you go. I don't think I have better ideas than CJ and I don't think the likes of our local radio pundits know more than me. I just want to know what Artie thinks.

We've seen really good hockey for the most part. I've also tuned out all this stuff a long time ago the day I realized I was getting stressed out by things totally out of my control.

These teams are too closely matched. Luck is by far the biggest factor. The only possibly differing factor was goaltending, and those have been relative non factors (Lundqvist having a bit of an edge, actually).

It was a lucky bounce.

But this is why possession is important. If the puck is in the habs end for all of ot chances are the rags will be the ones to eventually get that lucky bounce.

These teams are too closely matched. Luck is by far the biggest factor. The only possibly differing factor was goaltending, and those have been relative non factors (Lundqvist having a bit of an edge, actually).

It was a lucky bounce.

But this is why possession is important. If the puck is in the habs end for all of ot chances are the rags will be the ones to eventually get that lucky bounce.

Rangers owned us in ot

Does this mean it is better to play better than the other team? If so, I agree.

When the pirates heard my story they they were so outraged that they released the ship and crew, took me back to their village where they nursed me back to health. After a while they pooled their resources and got a me first class ticket back home. Now they help people all over Africa.

These teams are too closely matched. Luck is by far the biggest factor. The only possibly differing factor was goaltending, and those have been relative non factors (Lundqvist having a bit of an edge, actually).

It was a lucky bounce.

But this is why possession is important. If the puck is in the habs end for all of ot chances are the rags will be the ones to eventually get that lucky bounce.

Rangers owned us in ot

They're almost mirror teams. Mtl owned the first half of the game but didn't profit from it enough. NYR owned the last half and got the last goal. Of course playing better and controlling the flow would've helped in the ot, but it was an eb and flo game, same as the whole series and it flowed that way in ot. Mtl is a bit better at keeping chances to the outside, Rangers have a bit more 1 on 1 offense, but if they play 100 times it'll be 51-49.

Dog wrote:Good man. The habs lost because of a lucky bounce off Emelin's stick.

These teams are too closely matched. Luck is by far the biggest factor. The only possibly differing factor was goaltending, and those have been relative non factors (Lundqvist having a bit of an edge, actually).

It was a lucky bounce.

But this is why possession is important. If the puck is in the habs end for all of ot chances are the rags will be the ones to eventually get that lucky bounce.

Rangers owned us in ot

They're almost mirror teams. Mtl owned the first half of the game but didn't profit from it enough. NYR owned the last half and got the last goal. Of course playing better and controlling the flow would've helped in the ot, but it was an eb and flo game, same as the whole series and it flowed that way in ot. Mtl is a bit better at keeping chances to the outside, Rangers have a bit more 1 on 1 offense, but if they play 100 times it'll be 51-49.

It is very even. Every game is a coin flip which is why this series isnt over.

I cant believe max will continue to take 5 shots a game without scoring though. Think hes gonna pot a few soon and that might be enough given how close things are.

When the pirates heard my story they they were so outraged that they released the ship and crew, took me back to their village where they nursed me back to health. After a while they pooled their resources and got a me first class ticket back home. Now they help people all over Africa.

And then leaning on your window sillHe'll say one day you caused his willTo weaken with your love and warmth and shelterAnd then taking from his walletAn old schedule of trains, he'll sayI told you when I came I was a strangerI told you when I came I was a stranger.

TittiesNBeer wrote:I cant believe max will continue to take 5 shots a game without scoring though. Think hes gonna pot a few soon and that might be enough given how close things are.

They are almost all perimeter shots so it's easy to believe.

Except they arent.

Sportsnet had an article on this yesterday. In the first four games he had 7 high danger scoring chances (chances max converts just under 25% of the time normall) and numerous other medium danger chances (stuff he converts just under 10% of the time normally). It then compared him to everyone else in the series. The only guy at that level is nash.

In addition to the stats there was a compiliation video of his chances.

The explanation that his shots are perimeter doesnt hold up when you watch the video.